Evolution v. Creationism

[ding]

Got it. That would be the best cover. Maybe you are a bit more clever than your usual trash-posts.

I couldn't believe you took that bait.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/people-i-made-mad-today.834542/post-29370137

 

[Woodznutz]

You spoke to intent. If you are going to post in this thread, please pay attention, especially to your own posts. It gets tiring having to remind other posters what they, themselves, said. .

You said it was an attack on creationism. Wrong on every level. Evolution doesn't contradict creationism. It only contradicts the Bible mythology surrounding creation. So let's allso be clear about that.

Lots of outright attacks on these boards.

 

[Woodznutz]

No, you didnt.

The statement is self-evident.

 

[westwall]

I don't care. I am not a slave to "appeal to authority".

I dealt with the content you posted by him.



Yeah, we get it. He's about 1x10^55 times as smart as you are. No prob.

But not every single thing he said was perfected knowledge.

This is why high school dropouts like you fail when discussing technical topics. You never learned the logic fallacies. Which is why you are trying to nail all of them.

Ummm, every argument you make is an Appeal to Authority.

Troll boi.

 

[westwall]

I couldn't believe you took that bait.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/people-i-made-mad-today.834542/post-29370137

He's not a very smart troll.

 

[ding]

I am not a slave to "appeal to authority".

Except of course when it comes to AGW. Then you swallow it down. Because you certainly don't know the first thing about the earth's climate.

 

[james bond]

No, you aren't. You are stroking your ego while ignoring actual real evidence. You are the worst type of person to talk with because no matter what evidence is presented you will ignore it. You are an extremist. Extremists are a huge waste of time.

So

Bye.

Lol, an illustration is REAL evidence to you. Not to me. You're another who doesn't have much evidence for your arguments and in regards to global warming I am on the same side.

 

[westwall]

Lol, an illustration is REAL evidence to you. Not to me. You're another who doesn't have much evidence for your arguments and in regards to global warming I am on the same side.

No, you moron. The STUDY that I linked to, and describes the fossils in detail. The illustration was included because you are clearly too fucking stupid to know how to read a scientific study.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lots of outright attacks on these boards.

Irrelevant. The theory of evolution is not an attack on creationism. Both can be true.

"God did that!"

See how easy? Now you say it. Try it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lots of outright attacks on these boards.

Irrelevant. The theory of evolution is not an attac on creationism. Both can be true.
An
"God did that!"

See how easy? Now you say it.

Ummm, every argument you make is an Appeal to Authority.

Troll boi.

Anyone can read the thread and see that isn't true. Just another random outburst from you.

 

[james bond]

No, you moron. The STUDY that I linked to, and describes the fossils in detail. The illustration was included because you are clearly too fucking stupid to know how to read a scientific study.

Obviously, you ARE the ONE who is SAF as you can't convince anybody YOUR so-called science. Hard evidence would be DNA and the traits for each animal besides fossil evidence. You don't even show skeletal evidence nor why you associate them. Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt for your atheistic and evolutionary beliefs.

 

[westwall]

Obviously, you ARE the ONE who is SAF as you can't convince anybody YOUR so-called science. Hard evidence would be DNA and the traits for each animal besides fossil evidence. You don't even show skeletal evidence nor why you associate them. Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt for your atheistic and evolutionary beliefs.

I'm not an atheist. Moron.

 

[ding]

I'm not an atheist. Moron.

You are one of the few true agnostics on the board. Many claim to be but few behave like it. You do.

I'm like Thomas Jefferson when it comes to other people's religion or lack of religion... whatever works for them is alright by me.

Of course that doesn't mean when they attack mine, I'm going to sit idly by.

 

[james bond]

I'm not an atheist. Moron.

I can't discuss differences with you nor creation science. It doesn't matter what you are anymore. I've put you on ignore because of your nasty and angry attitude.

 

[westwall]

You are one of the few true agnostics on the board. Many claim to be but few behave like it. You do.

I'm like Thomas Jefferson when it comes to other people's religion or lack of religion... whatever works for them is alright by me.

Of course that doesn't mean when they attack mine, I'm going to sit idly by.

Yup. I respect all viewpoints. All are valid. JB is an example of an extremist jackass though. Just like apoo, and Crick, and the rest of the warmist faithful.

 

[westwall]

I can't discuss differences with you nor creation science. It doesn't matter what you are anymore. I've put you on ignore because of your nasty and angry attitude.

Yaaaaay me!

 

[zaangalewa]

I keep winning my arguments in the science forum.

Because you suffer a loss of the relation to the reality all around or because you nerve everyone to death with always the same neverending nonsense?

Recently, westwall claimed horses were the size of cats, but had no evidence.

55 million years ago the ancestors of horses had the size of a cat or fox and looked like a kind of antilope without horns. They had three toes in the front legs and four toes in the back legs. In 1840 was found the first of this fossils near London and had been classified "Hyracotherium". In Northamerica such fossils also had been discovered (although horses had died out there and the seddlers brought them back). Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899) gave them the name "Eohippus" - a short form which means something like "horse of the early sunrise".

I don't think you know much science as you're a human ball of confusion.

I know indeed a lot about theory of tests, how to make experiments and emipirical studies in general. I know also a lot about evolutionary epistemology - but a lot of this knowledge needs to be reorganized meanwhile. Specially it needs to be integrated some genetical structures which are able "to learn" (better perhaps to say: 'individually to be activated') from the life of near ancestors.

Otherwise, you would've showed us the PROOF of what you claim. Farmers are farmers.

I know. And a farmer like my grandpa was continously working and the same time never in hurry - also not when he had worked in his fields in the age of 97.

They didn't believe in evolution and don't have to today

What a nonsense. Every shepard and farmer likes to have good food (plants) and wonderful animals - and they know what to do to realize this since thousands of years.

-- I know Marge doesn’t believe in evolution.

And believes also not in stones, the sea or the Roman empire?

You don't have anything to back up what you said about a normal farmer or shepherd lol. What an embarrassment you are.

Hmm .... strange ... in my own language no one would use the word "embarassement" like a spearword against a person. It would describe only a situation. It is by the way an intention from me to use the word "spearword" here instead of the original English word "swearword". I correct in this way a mutation of this word so it feels better because it better fits.

 

[zaangalewa]

Women are so irrational and emotional which is why they aren't very good at science.

What's an irrational and emotional nonsense sentence full of prejudices. "The truth" is much more simple: "Behind every great man stands a geat woman" - independent whether the great man in the front is a woman or the great woman in the front is a man.

By the way: I find one of the most interesting partnerships in this context the marriage between Sokrates and Xanthippe. As far as I know he never spoke any bad word about her - but others did - perhaps only on reason because she had been a very sharp thinker - same as Sokrates had been.

Emotions are by the way not "irrational". That's also a prejudice. Who learns needs emotions. Wo learns a lot needs more emotions.

 

[Woodznutz]

Irrelevant. The theory of evolution is not an attack on creationism. Both can be true.

Er, no.

 

[ding]

What's an irrational and emotional nonsense sentence full of prejudices. "The truth" is much more simple: "Behind every great man stands a geat woman" - independent whether the great man in the front is a woman or the great woman in the front is a man.

By the way: I find one of the most interesting partnerships in this context the marriage between Sokrates and Xanthippe. As far as I know he never spoke any bad word about her - but others did - perhaps only on reason because she had been a very sharp thinker - same as Sokrates had been.

Emotions are by the way not "irrational". That's also a prejudice. Who learns needs emotions. Wo learns a lot needs more emotions.

Relax. I was just fucking with her.